Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
vile definition: 1. unpleasant, immoral, and unacceptable: 2. extremely unpleasant: 3. evil or disgusting:
Come on TA - you must be aware that having the audacity to question their science in these days of strict hate speech laws and political correctness qualifies you to be branded a wicked and evil human being.
TA - Scientists are not CRIMINALS they are our GODS and do not forget it 
Like a vulture swooping in for a morsel of carrion, so too does our dearest conspiracy theorist drop in defend the indefensible.
You're in good company TA. 
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
According to Godwin's Law, invoking Hitler means you lose the argument. Has TA conceded here, or is he just another radical rule breaker?
No rules being broken Mr Milk
Only thing being tested has been the ability to have a civil, good hearted conversation on the topic at hand. Certainly the comments within the thread speak to whether an authors beliefs are constructive or destructive.
After all is said & done, this thread shows how many individuals use personal opinion and tradition to displace fact as a source of knowledge.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Like a vulture swooping in for a morsel of carrion, so too does our dearest conspiracy theorist drop in defend the indefensible.
I know its going off on a tangent, but its impressive that you have noticed that PM33 is a conspiracy theorist. Most users take ages to figure that out, and usually only those that have access to heavy weather.
Very perceptive!
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Very perceptive!holy guacamole said..
Like a vulture swooping in for a morsel of carrion, so too does our dearest conspiracy theorist drop in defend the indefensible.
Why thank you!
(Edit)
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..Very perceptive!holy guacamole said..
Like a vulture swooping in for a morsel of carrion, so too does our dearest conspiracy theorist drop in defend the indefensible.
Why thank you!
(Edit)
this is sickening. can we please get back to throwing faeces at each other.
Select to expand quotelog man said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..Very perceptive!holy guacamole said..
Like a vulture swooping in for a morsel of carrion, so too does our dearest conspiracy theorist drop in defend the indefensible.
Why thank you!
(Edit)
this is sickening. can we please get back to throwing faeces at each other.
I was going to say 'I thought I still was', but now I will change it to 'I think we still are'.
(edit)
Who would have thought PM33 was a conspiracy theorist? all I have seen is his posts here in General...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Who would have thought PM33 was a conspiracy theorist? all I have seen is his posts here in General...
Perhaps you're not as perceptive as I am then. I dunno.
Can't explain it other than to say I read petermac33's posts right here in black and white.
Flat earth, climate change, 9/11 etc etc. All right here.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..Who would have thought PM33 was a conspiracy theorist? all I have seen is his posts here in General...
Perhaps you're not as perceptive as I am then. I dunno.
Can't explain it other than to say I read petermac33's posts right here in black and white.
Flat earth, climate change, 9/11 etc etc. All right here.
Yeah, good point. Most people don't pick up on it so quickly.
It seems like a disease with some of these people. Believe one, and they believe them all. Flat earth, moon landing hoax. 9/11 controlled demolition, vaccines are to kill people, they believe all of these! Crazy!
I think after a while you get a pattern and see that they believe in these things because others don't.
Interesting formula novs...at least we can rest assured that working steadily towards a carbon neutral world by a reasonable date like say, 2050, (which is what Australia signed up to in Paris) won't bring about the "end of western civilisation".
Some people here seem to think it will be the end and we'll be back in caves with torches. Someone might even be stupid enough to make a cartoon to this effect and then find it amusing. I dunno, just shooting the breeze.
Today in parliament our minister for climate change stated that Straya signed up to a quote "2050 worldwide target of carbon neutrality" in Paris but that this didn't mean Straya also had to come to the party and become carbon neutral too.
I mean talk about smokescreens and semantic gobbledegook. I thought Straya was on planet earth too. Streuth.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Interesting formula novs...at least we can rest assured that working steadily towards a carbon neutral world by a reasonable date like say, 2050, (which is what Australia signed up to in Paris) won't bring about the "end of western civilisation".
Some people here seem to think it will be the end and we'll be back in caves with torches. Someone might even be stupid enough to make a cartoon to this effect and then find it amusing. I dunno, just shooting the breeze.
Today in parliament our minister for climate change stated that Straya signed up to a quote "2050 worldwide target of carbon neutrality" in Paris but that this didn't mean Straya also had to come to the party and become carbon neutral too.
I mean talk about smokescreens and semantic gobbledegook. I thought Straya was on planet earth too. Streuth.
I don't, know, seems you are the one putting out smokescreens and mirrors here.
Australia has met and is on track to meet it's Paris targets. There was no requirement from Paris to implement hard policies now on a 2050 carbon nuetral world.
I think Taylor was pretty clear on the fact that the Government will not commit to a target with no plan on how to get there and no idea on the cost to the economy. Sounds like a position that has two feet solidly on planet earth if you ask me....
The Paris agreement talks about "working toward" a international carbon nuetral target by 2050, as part of limiting the magnitude of global warming. This included intermediate targets in 2020, 2025 and 2030 set individually by each nation as stepping stones, which Australia has met and is on track to meet it's upcoming targets.
It's says nothing about hard targets to acheive that now, but "working toward". The Paris agreement recognised the difficulty of setting hard targets now and instead uses intermediate goals as milestones, especially considering the unknowns in the magnitude of influence of CO2 in global warming and the lack of a realistic plan to achieve total reduction.
The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action by 2050.
Using carry-over credits from the Kyoto Protocols is simply cheating.
In reality, our hard GHG emissions and total carbon footprint are both rising and heading towards an 8% increase over 2005 levels by 2030, under current policy.
All the platitudes offered by the Morrison Government at present are simply smokescreens and lies.
V
V
There won't be any beach front real estate by 2050, artificial meat etc wont need cows .
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..
There won't be any beach front real estate by 2050
Right......and pigs can fly too.
^^ So when power prices go down in the next couple of years due to cheap renewables, will you send your savings to a charity?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^^ So when power prices go down in the next couple of years due to cheap renewables, will you send your savings to a charity?
Stop making predictions for a great renewable renaissance, it's as silly as climate change, global flooding, warming and
all the other rubbish produced by the alarmist zombies.
Check Al Gores soothsayer gloom and doom from over 20 years ago.
What's changed, nothing, except for more zombies running around spruiking rubbish.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..Stop making predictions for a great renewable renaissance, it's as silly as climate change, global flooding, warming and all the other rubbish produced by the alarmist zombies.holy guacamole said..^^ So when power prices go down in the next couple of years due to cheap renewables, will you send your savings to a charity?
Check Al Gores soothsayer gloom and doom from over 20 years ago.
What's changed, nothing, except for more zombies running around spruiking rubbish.
So will you give all your savings next couple of years to charity too?
You know boof, renaissance means rebirth. That indicates we had a previous renewables era....but I understand how you could use the word incorrectly since you believe "climate change is silly".
I'm not making predictions. I'm simply going on current investment in new Australian power generation, which is all renewables other than a tiny amount of gas and the official modelling by the AEMO and CSIRO and statements by the Business Council of Australia and other corporations. I guess they're all zombies too boof. LOLS
Per capita, Australia is the world's leading investor in new renewable energy, with triple the investment per capita of the second biggest investor Germany. So it's not a prediction - it's happening right now.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..boofta said..Stop making predictions for a great renewable renaissance, it's as silly as climate change, global flooding, warming and all the other rubbish produced by the alarmist zombies.holy guacamole said..^^ So when power prices go down in the next couple of years due to cheap renewables, will you send your savings to a charity?
Check Al Gores soothsayer gloom and doom from over 20 years ago.
What's changed, nothing, except for more zombies running around spruiking rubbish.
So will you give all your savings next couple of years to charity too?
You know boof, renaissance means rebirth. That indicates we had a previous renewables era....but I understand how you could use the word incorrectly since you believe "climate change is silly".
I'm not making predictions. I'm simply going on current investment in new Australian power generation, which is all renewables other than a tiny amount of gas and the official modelling by the AEMO and CSIRO and statements by the Business Council of Australia and other corporations. I guess they're all zombies too boof. LOLS
Per capita, Australia is the world's leading investor in new renewable energy, with triple the investment per capita of the second biggest investor Germany. So it's not a prediction - it's happening right now.
Bono you are old news. Charities in Australia are another scam for suckers.
They have "CEO's" w 6 digit salaries, pay expensive advisors and guess what even at apocaliptic situations they can choose how much funds they give to a cause.
I work hard, pay loads of taxes and that is my Charity contribution.
The lady social media famous who "collected" over 50 mi in donations now is in hidding for not reading the fine print and now Lawyers are going to feast on it.
Why these soo cheap renewables are not here now??
Select to expand quotenovetti said..Why these soo cheap renewables are not here now??
They are. Australia is the world leader in renewable energy investment per capita.
They're driving your power price down right now. Perhaps The NEM is in on the conspiracy?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
1- Yes, there is overstatement and confusion. There is a vast amount coming from those who believe that humans play no part in AGW, too.
Agreed, I've never said there aren't very narrow and incorrect "opinions" being pushed as fact on both sides. The problem is that those on the "denier" side rarely hold positions of influence.Select to expand quote2- You appear to be changing what you're calling out. Earlier you were insulting many scientists who honestly believe in both good science and that humans are playing a significant part in global warming. Even if you do not agree with them, the fact is that they are NOT "against the scientific method".
I'm not sure I said that, you might have to elaborate on the details of that for me to respond. I don't think i've insulted anyone. All i've done is call out poor papers, of which there is considerable backup byothers in the scientific community, and call out anyone who says that there is no longer any doubt that "humans are playing a significant part in global warming" that statement is not true. Select to expand quote3- Of course you have to discount the 9000 papers that had no position on AGW. They were irrelevant about the causation issue, which is what Cook et all were studying. They were only ever mentioned because they came up in a keyword search.
The issue is not about what the Cook paper looked at and discounted. It's about what conclusions were drawn from it. 14,000 papers related to climate change were looked at. Less than 1000 actually endorsed it as a thing and that may have been simply because they believe in the heat island effect of cities. 64 of those 1000 of those 14000 endorsed the view that NASA attributes to it. The fact that the paper deliberately counted those figures and then hid them rather than include them in the published paper is pretty damning. They then tried to hide the results and refused to release them for independent review. They only came out because someone found them buried on a UQ server, they were never officially released. The conclusions drawn do not match the data results. Thats what the issue is and one of the reasons why it is a poor scientific paper.Select to expand quote4- No, you are completely and utterly wrong about NASA. They do not "ONLY reference the Cook paper". Here's the link you get when you search on your term; climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ And when you read the link, it shows FIVE references to the sentence you quoted. Not ONE, but FIVE, and only TWO by Cook.
OOOH, nice. Thanks for that. NASA climate have finally actioned the call out on poor practices and changed thier reference page. I can assure you they used to only reference the one paper. Obviously the pressure to act in a scientific manner is finally getting to them.
However, it actualy doesn't change anything. NASA still defines the consensus as: "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" I know for a fact that the Cook papers do not state or show that (as you have agreed). I will look at the others but i'm willing to bet they also do not show that.
Sooooo, how is it again that I am wrong about NASA delierately making false statements?? Just the Cook paper is enough to hang them as it should not be referenced to back up that statement, but I will look at the rest and see if they conform.Select to expand quote
5 - You say "Here is Cook's quote on consensus: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming"
When I Google that, I get this; "No results found for "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming".
So, sorry, but where did Cook say that, and if so why doesn't it come up on a search? Some of his co-authors may be saying it, and that is (as you say) arguably over-stating the case. But you should see the complete bollocks that's coming from the other side about the same paper!
It's on Cooks Skeptical Science webpage. Not hard to find and I agree it is overstating the case, ie false.
NASA are clearly in on the conspiracy too Paradox. 
So let's recap on the alleged CLIMATE conspiracy ringleaders:
BCA
CSIRO
BOM
AEMO
IPCC
UN
NASA
STATE GOVERNMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ALL THE MEDIA EXCEPT RUPERT MURDOCH AND PALS
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action by 2050.
Well that is pretty concerning.
Can you give some credible figures on what the view of what Australia's inaction cost is V the action cost?
No one has actually costed a zero emmission 2050 target for Australia, thats what was being discussed remember? Labour has a plan and is committing to it, but apparently they are not sure what the cost is either, or it's so high they aint telling no one....
I know I am being facetious, but it's really the point. No one actually has much of a clue about any of this, including the actual role of CO2 in observed global warming, let alone how that influences climate.
We know we are contributing to warming, science tells us CO2 has a little influence, possibly. We also know that land use and cities acting as heat sinks are probably contributing. What we don't know is how much that contribution is compared to natural variance and we certainly don't know with any confidence what the magnitude of effects of that are on the climate.
There is real action being put in place to reduce our emmissions. This is prudent. What there isn't is a compelling reason to act at great cost to society to action something we are not confident is even much of an issue.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
NASA are clearly in on the conspiracy too Paradox.
So let's recap on the alleged CLIMATE conspiracy ringleaders:
BCA
CSIRO
BOM
AEMO
IPCC
UN
NASA
STATE GOVERNMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ALL THE MEDIA EXCEPT RUPERT MURDOCH AND PALS
It's not a conspiracy, it's politcs. Key difference.
I've only mentioned one issue wiht NASA Climate (different to NASA space) is there poor science practices in those other entities too? It's your list, not mine.
I have stuck to the facts, feel free to contest those facts or present another factual argument, but posting rubbish in order to make me out as a conspiracy monger is a tool of those with no real response.
You can do better HG, I know you can
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
4- No, you are completely and utterly wrong about NASA. They do not "ONLY reference the Cook paper". Here's the link you get when you search on your term; climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ And when you read the link, it shows FIVE references to the sentence you quoted. Not ONE, but FIVE, and only TWO by Cook.
I went back to look at the other papers (still doing that), but I saw this new reference on the NASA page relating to Cooks paper, I am assuming to more clearly boster thier statement, or at least to make it look like what they are saying is correct.
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus."
Cooks paper does indeed refer many times to "the consensus" it's what the paper is about of course. Here is a challenge for someone, find out what Cooks paper defines "the consensus" as?
A paper that is specifically written to measure "the consensus" would actually define what "the consensus" is wouldn't it? Otherwise what is it measuring???
Ok, don't bother, I will tell you. Cook's paper does not formally define "the consensus" at all (yes really). And as the numbers show, the only consensus you can infer from the numbers is that of those papers that acknowledge AGW is something that exists, most of them agree that it um...exists, however small (how it's not 100% I can't work out). That does not support NASA climates statement on consensus...at all.
Realistically if your school results placed you in the bottom quartile your opinions are going to reflect that capacity.
Given that a tad over 33% of the anti-global warming comments on the internet are generated by bots this topic will be endless...
A lot of reflection in this debate... Quantified by cartoons is one simple measure...
Luckily there are no double guessing self proclaimed experts diverting policy with handling the Covid-19 Corona virus (yet!!).
So for all those used to being no 174th out of 180 in the grading system - you are meeting your expectations...
Issued: 21 February 2020
** The WHO and UN warn we're putting our kids' futures at risk
------------------------------------------------------------
In a report published in The Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736?utm_source=Science+Deadline+-+Weekly+science+news+from+the+AusSMC&utm_campaign=94da779404-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_21_03_37&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b6a5c50ae8-94da779404-137622009(19)32540-1/fulltext) this week,
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) warned that we're risking our children's health and happiness by destroying the natural environment, ignoring climate change, and pushing fast food, sugary drinks, alcohol and tobacco.
Of 180 countries included in their analysis, Australia was 20th in terms of 'child flourishing' - a measure of survival, health, education and nutrition. But in terms of environmental sustainability, we performed dismally, coming in 174th.
Dr Liz Hanna from the Australian National University said the report "explains why the world's children are uprising, demanding governments protect their future".
And the University of Adelaide's Professor Stephen Lincoln described the results as "sobering".
"By 2030, 2.3 billion people, many of whom will be children, are projected to live in fragile or conflicted regions of the world," he said.
Associate Professor Grant Blashki from the University of Melbourne agreed, telling the AusSMC the report should act as a "wake up call for Australian policymakers".
He went on to say that Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change, so "the long-term well-being of our children needs careful attention".
While Australia performed well in 'child flourishing', some sections of our society are missing out, according to Senior Professor Anthony Okely from the University of Wollongong. "More needs to be done here to reduce health and education inequities, especially among our Indigenous children and those who are poor," he told the Centre.
In addition to environmental challenges, the report highlighted predatory marketing of unhealthy foods and alcohol to children in Australia as a risk to their futures. They estimate that young people were exposed to 51 million alcohol adverts in a single year while watching sporting events on TV, despite industry claims of effective self-regulation.
Dr Hanna told the Centre that it's not just the alcohol industry that is problematic, and suggested the government is "pandering to the sugar industry, and refusing a sugar tax, [which] needlessly renders children at high risk of obesity, diabetes and a life plagued by chronic disease and disability".
But where Australia really fell down was on environmental sustainability, an area that she believes has been "willfully neglected", transforming "the lucky country into an international laggard that is failing its children".
Monash University's Dr Paul Read had an even harsher analysis: "Australia...is the drunken uncle at every wedding who doesn't seem to realise what he's doing wrong. If every person on Earth lived like him, we'd need three planets."
You can read the expert reaction here (www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-who-and-unicef-say-our-kids-future-is-under-threat?utm_source=Science+Deadline+-+Weekly+science+news+from+the+AusSMC&utm_campaign=94da779404-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_21_03_37&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b6a5c50ae8-94da779404-137622009)
I suppose some might be looking on the bright side the grading of 174 out of 180 puts them 6 places higher than they though they would be!!
Stay healthy
Cheers
AP
Select to expand quoteParadox said..It's not a conspiracy, it's politcs. Key difference. holy guacamole said..
NASA are clearly in on the conspiracy too Paradox.
So let's recap on the alleged CLIMATE conspiracy ringleaders:
BCA
CSIRO
BOM
AEMO
IPCC
UN
NASA
STATE GOVERNMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ALL THE MEDIA EXCEPT RUPERT MURDOCH AND PALS
I've only mentioned one issue wiht NASA Climate (different to NASA space) is there poor science practices in those other entities too? It's your list, not mine.
I have stuck to the facts, feel free to contest those facts or present another factual argument, but posting rubbish in order to make me out as a conspiracy monger is a tool of those with no real response.
You can do better HG, I know you can
Oh sure everyone involved in the science of climate change is acting politically! An interesting allegation paradox.
Shall we add that to the climate conspiracy theory that climate action will lead to the end of civilisation?
The BOM, NASA, CSIRO and IPCC are not political institutions, try as you might to paint them as such.
I know you can do better than this paradox.
Ok .. people getting a bit salty with each other in here, and many abusive/name calling posts removed.
Just a friendly reminder that forums are about discussion - expect differing viewpoints. That's the point - its a forum. If we all agreed, there'd be nothing to discuss.
Name calling seldom wins debates. The only opinion it might change is people view of your character.
If you want to change opinion/win people to your point of view, perhaps do some research and find out how. If you're not getting the results or response you want, perhaps it's how you're saying it....
As I was once told : "Communication is the response you get"
Onwards and upwards ..
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Oh sure everyone involved in the science of climate change is acting politically! An interesting allegation paradox.
Shall we add that to the climate conspiracy theory that climate action will lead to the end of civilisation?
The BOM, NASA, CSIRO and IPCC are not political institutions, try as you might to paint them as such.
I know you can do better than this paradox.
I never said or implied any of that, so I will leave it at that.
I have clearly shown that NASA Climate is deliberately putting up false and unsupported statements on thier website. The fact that they have altered the reference to try to bolster the claim, but still fail to adequately support the statement shows it wasn't an error but is deliberate. I can only conclude that whoever authorised the content on that page, did so to deliberately to mislead people. I also can only conclude they took that action for political purposes as it is certainly not scientific. I'd happily consider other reasons why they would deliberately lie? Feel free to provide another reason.
I thinks its interesting that you don't think the UN (of which IPCC is a part of) is a political organisation??
